pride_project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool returns (project title, abstract, species, experimental type, data files) and its intended purpose. It does not cover failure modes or response formatting details, but for a simple ID-based fetch this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core operation and resource. The bilingual repetition adds a slight redundancy, but it remains only two sentences and contains no filler or irrelevant detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, read-only fetch-by-ID tool with an output schema available, the description supplies the essential information: the input format, the resource, and the expected return categories. The only notable gap is not explicitly mentioning the pride_search sibling as the appropriate tool when the ID is unknown.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides no property descriptions, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by specifying the parameter format ('PXD project number') and giving a concrete example ('PXD000001'), which tells an agent exactly how to construct a valid call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific operation ('Get'), a specific resource ('PRIDE proteomics project'), and a precise lookup key ('by ID'). It also enumerates the returned content (title, abstract, species, experiment type, data files), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The 'by ID' phrasing also distinguishes it from the sibling pride_search tool without needing an explicit comparison.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage context is implied: use this tool when you already have a PXD project ID and need project details. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point users to pride_search for query-based discovery, so the guidance is reasonably clear but not fully explicit about alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.